Category Archives: Patentability

DC ineligibility decision erroneous as claims not “solely directed to the printed matter”

Posted on November 23, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

C. R. Bard, et al. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1756, -1934 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1756.OPINION.11-10-2020_1683097.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, STOLL November 10, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC erroneously granted JMOL based on expert mistake and conclusion that printed matter made claims patent ineligible under section … Continue reading →

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Revised FC opinion maintains invalidity of one independent claim as claiming a natural law and nothing more but vacates and remands DC invalidity decision regarding second independent claim as including “positioning” limitation”

Posted on August 13, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 (revised July 30, 2020) Update (July 30, 2020): Original FC opinion affirmed the DC decision that AA’s claims are ineligible … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

DC patent ineligibility holding for Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims again reversed

Posted on August 5, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Illumina, Inc., Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1419 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA March 17, 2020 Update (August 3, 2020): In a revision of its March 17, 2020 opinion reversing the DC’s 101 ineligibility decision, the FC … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Patent ineligibility decision affirmed as claims “recite no technological solution”

Posted on June 25, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Dropbox, Inc. et al. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1765, -1767, -1823 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES June 19, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC holdings of patent ineligibility affirmed as claims did not, e.g., “describe how to solve the problem in … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

Uniloc claim ineligible under § 101 as abstract, claim includes “no specific asserted improvements”

Posted on May 14, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2019-2048 MOORE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 13, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of patent ineligibility under § 101 affirmed (abstract idea since claim includes “no specific asserted improvements”). Summary: Uniloc appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

DC ineligibility decision reversed as claims are directed to a (“patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality”

Posted on May 4, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1835 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO April 30, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decision of patent ineligibility under § 101 for being abstract (Alice, step one) reversed and remanded … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

DC patent ineligibility holding for Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims reversed

Posted on March 20, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Illumina, Inc., Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1419 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA March 17, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding that Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims are patent ineligible reversed. Summary: Illumina appealed DC decision finding certain claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of treatment claims eligible under 101 (DC reversed); DC obviousness findings affirmed

Posted on March 17, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket No. 2019-1172 DYK, MOORE, HUGHES March 16, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision of ineligibility under 101 for method of treatment claims reversed; invalidity for double-patenting and obviousness affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of manufacturing claims ineligible under § 101 since “the mechanism for achieving the desired result” involving a natural law “are not actually claimed”

Posted on October 9, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 Brief Summary: DC holding that AAM’s “method for manufacturing” claims are patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., “the mechanism … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of treatment claims patent ineligible under 101 for being “focused on screening for a natural law” (“the invention does not improve treatment…by taking advantage of the body’s natural process”)

Posted on August 28, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

INO Therapeutics LLC, et al. v. Praxair Distribution Inc., et al. Docket No. 2018-1019 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding that “method of treating patients” claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed as the claims are … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment